Reality as "is", co-created and fracturing

Dear (((((((((((((Henry))))))))))), One of my Professors, in the Christmas card he sent to me, wrote :- U are a true seeker . I am indeed the seeker and as

Message 1 of 9
, Jan 4, 2004

0 Attachment

Dear (((((((((((((Henry))))))))))),

One of my Professors, in the Christmas card he sent to me, wrote :- "U are a true seeker". I am indeed the seeker and as the seeker, I sometimes struggle to bring it all together. This email will make evident such struggling, the grasping of differing threads and their entwining, in an attempt to define meaning or truth, if there is in fact any truth to be found, the eternal quest of the Philosopher ;))))). As such, before I begin, I apologise to those who may find my struggle irritating. Of course I could have written privately. However, I perceive the subject matter as well worthy of discussion and would hope that others will be inspired to contribute their own insight and understanding.

U wrote :- in basic agreement with you, there are such problems as "fracturing" IN the world... & although it comes in differing ways for different situations, & their complex of interactions, these separations are pervasive. & as we are in the world (the universe, for that matter) we necessarily become infected with, one way or the other... and later in the email .....

You're darn right, during the Vietnam war/Watergate period... when I lived in California, I used to read the headlines of newspapers on the news stands... & swear I could see these troubles in the eyes, behaviour of my fellow "citizens," right in the streets!!! i.e., a correspondence as certain events showed themselves in this way (a provocative manner of headline news). I saw this as an eruption of a massive social crisis/psychosis... that probably was there all the time, in more seemingly manageable form... for many (masked by politeness, self/imposed censorship, bureaucratic form, etc.)

U say "I saw this as an eruption of a massive social crisis/psychosis... that probably was there all the time".

My Dearest Ronnie (R.D. Laing) in his revolutionary theories of Mental Illness, in particular Schizophrenia, believed the greater majority exist, as Jung suggested, in a state of unconsciousness, blissfully unaware of the delusional drama in which each is merely an actor, this unconscious collusive delusion created in order to maintain ontological security.

Ronnie perceived the Schizophrenic as the visionary, overtly aware of his/her "own" experience and motives, hypertrophy of self-consciousness conferring a greater sense of psychological mindedness.[1] Psychosis, rather than an apparition of senseless delusion, was the unconscious becoming conscious,[2] visions of the literal and figurative truth,[3] the overwhelmingly violence, hostility and alienation within the patient's own micro-social system.

Both u and I are overtly aware of a massive social crisis/psychosis. As written in my previous email, I have become blatantly aware of this crisis/psychosis both within the micro and macro social system. My saving grace, as I suggested, appears to be my ability to stand outside of myself, as mere observer. As u say, and Ronnie would obviously agree, this mass social psychosis would appear to have been maintained throughout the entire history of mankind. However, as Taylor suggests, humanity is moving ever forward toward consciousness, becoming conscious of and as such, many are now confronted by the seeming absurdity of created reality. Our modern civilization is in crisis. Mental illness has now become the "norm", the greater majority now suffering from some form of neurosis or psychosis.

I am presently half way through my Honours Degree and my study is focusing upon this very subject. I cannot be sure if this is my intention or the University's lol. In an Honours Degree u are given no course material, no distinct subject matter and the combination of units in the degree is the student's choice. I should imagine, given the diversity of choice, what becomes the student's thesis is rather like lotto. While there are a certain number of units/topics available, the combination gives endless possibilities. In first semester this year I will be studying "Foucault and Deleuze" and in second semester "Eastern Philosophies of Mental Illness" and upon completion I begin my thesis. I am the seeker and as Sartre, Jung and my Dearest Ronnie, I seek to free humanity from this delusional drama, in order for each and every human being to authentically embrace their own experience of being-in-the-world.

I was most fortunate in having the opportunity to study the Philosophy of Time, which touched upon Physics and since have had an overwhelming urge to study Physics and Cosmology in more detail.

U wrote :- I now turn toward the rather well known cite of Albert Einstein regarding the development of atomic fission... (& I paraphrase from memory): "When we fissioned the atom, we changed everything save our way of thinking." I believe he meant exactly that... changed EVERYTHING.

Please could u explain the above in more detail ;)))))))))))))))))))))))) to enable me to comprehend your statement:- "the potencies for physical realization would be on a differing track than those charged (willingly or no) for the cares & considerations for those physical potencies realizations... (or elimination) which is us. & I am laying aside here, for the moment any analysis of relations of social stratifications... but do see the necessity to appropriately include this... to accurately understand any relations... between humans... (& nature as well).

I don't know if u have ever experienced this phenomena, but with each study I find something, this something incomplete, which begs me to remember in order to build upon it at a later date. While the study of the Philosophy of Time was indeed most enlightening, the something, which seemed incomplete and begged for me to remember, was physics suggestion that all physical matter is of one, energy, and the only difference in manifestations of matter is the differing dance of neutrons and quarks. While at this moment I do not know the profound significance of this, I do know I must seek its significance.

The tomatoes sound great ;)))) In consciousness, I can taste it, oops juice running down chin lol.

... Dear Elaine, As you may already be aware, Being & Nothingness is most descriptive of relations between the natural/physical & human... as well as the

Message 2 of 9
, Jan 5, 2004

0 Attachment

At 8:56 AM +1000 01/05/04, Elaine Phipps-Earl wrote:

>Please could u explain the above in more detail
>;)))))))))))))))))))))))) to enable me to comprehend your
>statement:- "the potencies for physical realization would be on a
>differing track than those charged (willingly or no) for the cares &
>considerations for those physical potencies realizations... (or
>elimination) which is us. & I am laying aside here, for the moment
>any analysis of relations of social stratifications... but do see
>the necessity to appropriately include this... to accurately
>understand any relations... between humans... (& nature as well).

Dear Elaine,

As you may already be aware, "Being & Nothingness" is most
descriptive of relations between the natural/physical & human... as
well as the attempts by humans toward each other, i.e.; "in-itself" /
"for-itself..." This work, also facing courageously the largely
prohibited understanding of the place/s of negativity in its'
multifaceted forms... (usually, until then, thought of as evil...) &
thereby offering some of the implications thereby lost & gained for
human understanding/possibility. "Critique of Dialectical Reasoning"
Sartres' final major work, begins further the more expansive journey
toward the social understandings of the implications of aforesaid
findings; "praxis," ("the activity of an individual or group in
organizing conditions in the light of some end"), "practico-inerte,"
("matter in which past praxis is embodied"), etc..

A wider or deeper discussion of "physics" is probably best, for the
moment, for another forum... but as I think that raising the issue of
physicality & intentionality... are reasonably germane &
contemporaneous problems... for "existential" comprehensions...
which, to take the ideas, findings, etc. of J. P. Sartre for anything
more than academic exercises in mental stimulation... we should
understand this thought (& others) though the lens of intentionality
& current problem solving, I therefore proceed, as briefly as I can.

I have always taken the cautionary statement previously given... by
Albert Einstein re fissioning the atom as serious (& importantly,
though not woven into an attempted "holistic" philosophy such as B.&
N., an experiential insightful) warning regarding the DISJUNCTION of
knowledge & the known... i.e., that the physical powers available
to be unleashed... newly discovered had insufficient (or no)
controls... because sufficient attentions/means/methodologies were
not established as prerequisites for unleashing (or leveraging) these
new found energy sources/means, & often disequilibria in the extreme,
(& which likely were/are, manifestations of possible physical prowess
at the tip of the iceberg, so to speak...). This is to say... we
have had (possibly until recently) insufficient scientific / cultural
/ social awareness of the serious NEED for actual confidence in
fielding appropriately such powers...

An "enemy" missle gets fired from somewhere... as it flys... or is
it a crow... or what? This really happens. From the "other side,"
it is just a moveing blip on a radar screen...

Around 1985 or 86 I attended an honors ceremony for the late great
scientist/peace advocate... Linus Pauling in which he said something
like: He had just visited the then president Ronald Reagan at the
White House, to (try to) talk about his volatile rhetoric regarding
the "evil empire"(i.e., the Soviet Union), the cavalier statements
about preemptive use of nuclear weapons... star wars, etc.

He further said something like Reagan would not look him in the
eye... & that the course of discussion revealed the distinct
possibility that this man (Reagan) did not really understand that
nuclear weapons were anything more than "glorified bullets & bows &
arrows."

The fact of six billion human beings on planet Earth... & growing...
also presents some ticklish problems that yet have no sure
resolution... & given the fractious nature of historical/social
developments & the institutionalized edifice of largely anti nature
resolve... bodes not well... Especially since given recourse to
resolve is "status quo;" i.e., to EXTERNALIZE all costs for
resources ( that may be conned, pirated, captured, etc., for
succeeding generations to "pay" never mind the impending global
changes such as extreme temperature, chemical, etc. which these same
generations will be facing fuller costs from as well... but that's
another discussion (forum).

So yes, it's all the same energy base... dancing... but then there
is the polka... the waltz... tango... shotish... salsa... boogie...
rock... rap... soul... the death wish doodle (not really a dance),
etc., with many more & more local variations on all!

>He further said something like Reagan would not look him in the
>eye... & that the course of discussion revealed the distinct
>possibility that this man (Reagan) did not really understand that
>nuclear weapons were anything more than "glorified bullets & bows &
>arrows."

Dear Henry, Please correct me if i am wrong. Are u meaning to say that while we have managed to discover physical laws of nature, manipulate and transmute the

Message 4 of 9
, Jan 5, 2004

0 Attachment

Dear Henry,

Please correct me if i am wrong. Are u meaning to say that while we have
managed to discover physical laws of nature, manipulate and transmute the
physical to create our own manifestations of power, our own processes of
logic are inferior to the power we have created?

Love & Massive Hugs
Elaine

Henry W. Peters

... Hi Elaine, First off, I would like to make mention that I think there are even significant scientific/technological success stories humans can claim... in

Message 5 of 9
, Jan 7, 2004

0 Attachment

>Dear Henry,
>
>Please correct me if i am wrong. Are u meaning to say that while we have
>managed to discover physical laws of nature, manipulate and transmute the
>physical to create our own manifestations of power, our own processes of
>logic are inferior to the power we have created?
>
>Love & Massive Hugs
>Elaine

Hi Elaine,

First off, I would like to make mention that I think there are even
significant scientific/technological success stories humans can
claim... in part or in whole...

But as to your above interpretation: Close... but because I believe
that it would not really help us get to the heart of the matter,
i.e., possibly altering the situation... I think I would not
necessarily use the appellation "inferior," at least in broad or
sweeping generalizations... Along with the possibility of self
destruction resulting from such activity (science/technology run
amok), critiquing this dilemma, calls into question relationships;
like our ability to not be determined by a "pastness..." & the
like... I guess I see these "powers" as you say, as being not
sufficiently & appropriately understood... & our "own processes of
logic" would be deficient... in, say, attentiveness... vision...
spirit... humility...

One hesitates, in such an abbreviated context, to use the word
freedom... because of the largely unquestioned abuse this term has
been historically brought towards... (a kind of entrapment, I might
call this abuse) but non the less... think there is no escaping the
importance of... this concept... i.e. what makes it possible for
humans to distinguish ourselves from our surroundings????? Is this
not a rather basic "existential" question... of sorts?

It may be... that the same or similar thought/mind processes/powers
which can & have & do lead to the afore mentioned "fracturing" (or
getting off track, separations, alienation & so forth) when
transformed or made self aware thought/action developments may be
transformed, somehow, empowered to produce change... productive of
more than a science that is so called for science sake... & or just
monetary 'success,' & or merely subservient to the powers that be...
but the will to transform, & needed resource must then be mustered...
forth... somehow... understanding there are no guaranteed out
comes... in experiment... by definition.

In other words, relationships productive of relationship/s with
nature & others that may be more actively & experientially
considerate (ergo, engaged) with the processes of nature...
Producing relevant novelty (not the hee-hee kind, like say a whoopee
cushion, etc.). Knowing that we do not know... seems also important
to be able to appropriately recognize along with knowing that we
do... & also seems to me; to need a kind of confidence which comes
not from any exterior discovery anyone could make... (say;
humility... creativity).

& then, devise ways to work with these processes... & who is to say
that a part of the consideration/s couldn't be the mutually forward
thinking accommodation of the needs for everyone? & it may just be
that the "everyone" is an essential aspect for the possibility of
forwarding of "success" of any living human project... I realize
that there are alternatives... I say, we may as well check out the
ones that seem to be good choice for ones self & then be best for the
mostest... & go for it... if possible & or timely (but this is
another matter).

This seems to me... to call for a science which is integral to
imperatives of human need... attentive to natures ways... & around &
around (spider spiral like).

I received the below forwarded article on a environmental activist
discussion list in which I participate... it may illustrate
somewhat, further difficulties some of the condition which we find
our selves in... & the need for appropriate transcendence. Please
excuse me if some on this list feel/think it to be not on topic... I
mean it as a further illustration of the NEED for resolution of some
of the above & the problems highlighted in the below forwarded
article...

GAITHERSBURG, Md. (CSM) - In theory, science is supposed to be cold,
analytical, dispassionate - and studiously apolitical. But in the real
world of competing demands for federal research dollars, savvy scientists
of all disciplines - from cognitive psychologists running rats through
mazes to nuclear physicists operating massive particle accelerators -
recognize that a certain amount of political meddling in their
research by
policymakers in the executive branch and Congress is to be expected.
However, there are limits - limits the Bush administration has frequently
disregarded by imposing stringent political controls on a broad
variety of
federal scientific programs and activities. This has raised acute concern
in the American scientific community that the administration's drive to
stamp its conservative values on science isn't just affecting policy
decisions, but undermining the integrity of the U.S. research
infrastructure itself.
Playing politics with science is nothing new in Washington, of course.
President Nixon shut down his White House science office
because he didn't
like the advice he was getting on arms control and the supersonic
transport. Nevertheless, several science-policy experts argue that no
presidency has been more calculating and ideological than the Bush
administration in setting political parameters for science. President
Bush's blunt rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, and his
decision restricting stem-cell research are only the most obvious and
widely publicized examples of what has become a broader pattern
across the
administration.
At the same time, the president's chief science adviser, atomic physicist
John Marburger, who is largely well-regarded in the scientific community,
reportedly has very little substantive access to Bush and his senior
aides, and his office has been moved out of the White House complex.
Some examples of the Bush administration's interference with science
include:

- The removal from a National Cancer Institute Web site of a scientific
analysis concluding that abortions do not increase a woman's risk of
breast cancer. That move, in November 2002, contradicted the
broad medical
consensus, and members of Congress protested the change. In response, the
NCI updated its Web site to include the conclusion of a panel of experts
that induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer
risk.

- Dropping a leading addiction expert from the University of New Mexico,
Dr. William Miller, from consideration for membership on the National
Advisory Council on Drug Abuse after an administration aide quizzed him
about whether he opposed abortion ("no") and had voted for Bush ("no").

- The elimination of the section on global warming in a comprehensive
Environmental Protection Agency report on the environment last June. EPA
officials decided to eliminate the section on climate change after an
earlier draft prompted the White House to demand major revisions.

The politicization of U.S. science has drawn close attention from leading
scientific journals. Bush administration interference with federal
scientific advisory committees as well as peer-review panels for research
grants is an "epidemic of politics," editorialized Science, the
influential weekly journal of the American Association for the
Advancement
of Science. "What is unusual about the current epidemic is not that the
Bush administration examines candidates for compatibility with its
'values.' It's how deep the practice cuts, in particular, the way it now
invades areas once immune to this kind of manipulation," wrote editor in
chief Donald Kennedy.
Prominent Democrats in Congress have expressed frustration over
the mixing
of politics with science.
"I think what they've done is unprecedented," says Rep. Henry Waxman (D)
of California, ranking minority member of the House Government Reform
Committee. "Even prominent Republicans who served under
Presidents Reagan,
Ford, and Nixon are alarmed.... Leading scientists both inside
and outside
the administration have said politics is getting into
previously protected
areas."
Mr. Waxman's committee issued a report in August concluding that the
administration's political interference with science has led to
"misleading statements by the president, inaccurate responses
to Congress,
altered Web sites, suppressed agency reports, erroneous international
communications, and the gagging of scientists."
The report - which can be seen athttp://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience - alleges abuses in 21
areas ranging from abstinence-only sex education to breast cancer,
drinking water, food safety, global warming, prescription-drug
advertising, stem-cell research, and workplace safety.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan dismissed the report as
"riddled with distortions, inaccuracies and omissions." And, he said,
"This administration looks at the facts, and reviews the best available
science based on what's right for the American people. The only
one who is
playing politics about science is Congressman Waxman."
Several senior-science policy specialists say that while the
Waxman report
has a partisan tone, most of its major points are well taken. Neal Lane,
who served as director of the National Science Foundation and then as
presidential science adviser during the Clinton administration, observed:
"It's always the case in the White House ... that science is one of a
number of sets of issues that a president, a political
policymaker, has to
consider when they're making decisions. Sometimes the decision goes in a
way that the science would not suggest. But there's such a long list of
egregious actions taken by this administration that I think it
essentially
gives a false impression of what the science really is and strongly
suggests the administration simply doesn't care to find out."
Professor Lewis Branscomb, a science policy expert at Harvard and former
director of the National Bureau of Standards under Nixon, notes that on
the question of stacking federal scientific advisory committees, "I'm not
aware that (Nixon) ever hand-picked ideologues to serve on advisory
committees, or dismissed from advisory committees very well-qualified
people if he didn't like their views.... What's going on now is in many
ways more insidious. It happens behind the curtain. I don't think we've
had this kind of cynicism with respect to objective scientific advice
since I've been watching government, which is quite a long time."
Perhaps the corrosive issue of political interference with science won't
be crucial to Bush's re-election chances, but by undercutting the
integrity of the scientific community, it may be crucial to the long-term
quality of life not just in the U.S., but also in other countries around
the world.

Barton Reppert, a former Associated Press reporter and editor in
Washington, New York and Moscow, is a freelance science and technology
writer.

NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving this information for research and educational purposes.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.